Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV31987, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV31987    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 31

                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Brian Bajah (“Defendant”) for subrogation to recover damages paid to its insured relating to a motor vehicle accident involving Defendant. 

On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Application for Publication seeking an order directing service of the summons and complaint on Defendant by publication in the Los Angeles Independent newspaper.  An Order for Publication was signed and filed by the Court on June 19, 2020, ordering that service on Defendant was to be done by publication in the Los Angeles Independent.  On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed Proof of Publication showing the summons was published in the Los Angeles Independent on July 16, 23, 30 and August 6, 2020.  Thereafter, Defendant’s default was entered on December 23, 2020, and a default judgment was entered against Defendant in the amount of $35,253.07 on June 21, 2021. 

On November 8, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint; Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. 

Defendant asserts that at the time of the accident, his driver’s license had his old residential address listed and did not have his current address in Hawthorne, California.  Defendant asserts that he has never heard of the Los Angeles Independent newspaper, and that to date, he has never been served with any pleading from this lawsuit.  Defendant contends that he has not been avoiding service, and that he has been denied his due process rights to dispute the damages claimed by Plaintiff.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s purported service never provided any notice to Defendant, and that Plaintiff failed to comply with CCP §§ 415.10, 415.20, or 415.50.  Defendant argues that the default and default judgment entered against him are void and should be set aside under CCP § 473. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that to the extent Defendant is moving to quash service of summons, the motion is untimely under CCP § 418.10(e).  Further, Plaintiff asserts that it used skip tracing services to confirm Defendant’s address, and that after attempting service at the addresses it received, including a Hawthorne address, it properly served Defendant by publication.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant fails to show that service was improper, and that Defendant does not establish that relief is warranted under CCP § 473(d). 

In reply, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s opposition should be disregarded because it was untimely served and filed only eight court days before the hearing.  Additionally, Defendant argues for the first time in reply that the service of summons did not result in actual notice to Defendant, so the default and default judgment should be set aside pursuant to CCP § 473.5(a).  Defendant asserts that he only became aware of this action after the default and default judgment were entered against him.  Lastly, Defendant contends that the default judgment is void because Plaintiff intentionally posted the summons and complaint in a newspaper that Plaintiff knew Defendant did not reside in the city where the summons was published. 

Given Defendant raised for the first time in reply arguments concerning CCP § 473.5(a), the motion will be continued to allow Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s contentions regarding this provision.  The hearing on the motion is continued to May 22, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in this Department.  Any supplemental opposition by Plaintiff is due at least nine court days before the continued hearing date.  Defendant may file any supplemental reply at least five court days before the hearing. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of April 2023